Me and the Internet go way back. When I came to TCD as an undergraduate in 1994 one of the first things we Maths students had to do was sign up for a computer account that gave you an email address and access to the web and newsgroups. At the time the web was only just starting to flourish and you could easily keep up with every new Irish website. Compare that to now where the IEDR (the people who manage .ie addresses) registered over 10,000 new Irish domains in the first quarter of 2011. The web was also a fairly tame place at the time due to bandwidth constraints, the entire TCD internet connection was a 64Kbps line, so filesharing and movie downloads were not even on the agenda.
Over the last 8 years or so, Ireland has moved from a mainly dial-up environment to a broadband one where most consumer products have at least 3Mbps download speed. In recent times we have seen the music industry attempt to impose filtering, QoSing and disconnection as alternative solutions to the copyright infringement issue. I have posted last October on the result of the UPC case where the Judge said that if there were legislation in place he would have no problem in enforcing a three-strikes policy.
So it is with some interest I noticed last week that an advocate from the EU court of justice said that blanket blocking of websites would be a breach of the charter of fundamental rights. Just as well we signed up to that in Lisbon then! While the statement isn't a final judgment on the case between the Belgian entertainment industry and an ISP, it does carry substantial weight as it shows the line of appeals that could be successfully followed if the case goes against Scarlet (the ISP).
As I have said (more than once) in this blog, I am not a legal expert, but I am fairly well versed in the technical issues surrounding internet access. The biggest problem with any solution imposed by a court on an ISP is that within hours, a workaround will have been found by those that are serious about circumventing the block, leaving those that are casual users caught in the crossfire. Beyond the technical though, it is vital that the presumption of innocence is maintained at all times. If an organisation believes I am infringing their rights, then there is a perfectly good legal system in place for them to use to pursue me for damages. It should not be the role of any other entity to act as judge of my actions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If an organisation believes I am infringing their rights, then there is a perfectly good legal system in place for them to use to pursue me for damages. It should not be the role of any other entity to act as judge of my actions."
ReplyDeleteWhile I hate the idea of making ISPs police their users, copyright is criminal law, not just a contract between 2 parties and I expect this is why rights-holders think its reasonable to rope the ISPs into it. There are precedents e.g. bank make you jump through hoops before opening account because of money-laundering regulations.
The similarity with money laundering is that ordinary punters are hassled to prevent a crime. The key difference is that the crime being prevented is that of large-scale criminals whereas ISPs will have no impact on large-scale commercial copyright breach.
Ah but that's the point. The 2000 Act does not make copyright infringement a Criminal Act. Read Chapter 9 of the act. Infringers are not guilty of a criminal offence - it just makes it actionable in court by the owner. Huge difference. It only becomes a criminal offence (Chapter 13) when you attempt to profit from your infringing.
ReplyDeleteAll attempts at money laundering are criminal and will be prosecuted by the DPP on behalf of the state.